Frog

No relation.

And the rest of the essay: But a prior note...

I want you all to know who have rejected such simple physics -- that it makes this forum look extremely stupid.

Moderator: WTF are you on? Mod-Ecky Pills or something>???? You don't know me, and none of you do. If i post physics, i post physics. I don't need to back myself up on remedial friggin question like:

''how does light cause curvature?''

Well here you go... didn't you know that energy and momentum in spacetime (properties that the photon has) causes curvature and gravity>???? Well... never mind.\ It just shows how thickle and how many prancies lightweights around here try and pretend they actually know physics, when the best they do is read from some antiquated wiki page.

Now, for my essay.

1.
A Clue with Luxens

Luxens do not experience inertial effects as they move through spacetime. Inertia seems to be a resistance on corporeal bodies moving through the cosmos. What causes it has never been explained by Newtonian equations or even relativity –

A major clue arises to why matter has mass, when considering the intrinsic phenomena of inertia. There are equations that where developed showing that a thing moving through the Zero-Point Energy Field causes distortions within that field of negative energy. Some scientists have proposed that the energy is somehow affecting matter – providing it with inertial properties.

Since matter is nothing but gravity, and gravity being nothing but distortions, these equivalent properties is a field conveying the property of matter – its inertial mass. This effect has also been proposed to be what gives matter its mass, instead of the hypothetical Higgs Boson.

The Luxens provides vital clues to proving this hypothesis. Since photons do not experience inertial effects, it must be due to the fact it has no mass – which stands to reason with the relativistic equations provided earlier. The effect of inertia however links Newtons equation of:

F=Ma

Since inertia only effects a matter that is accelerating. Because of this, force is proportional to inertia as well, and what is this force?
The ZPF might have some kind of ‘’back-reaction’’ on the presence of real matter in the vacuum. Acceleration causes curvature, which creates gravity, and this might couple to like-distortions in the ZPF. If curvature is gravity, and gravity is mass, and mass is acceleration and acceleration is distortions, then the ZPF might be acting on the mass from inside, sparking corporeality.

Photons themselves cause curvature because of their energy and momentum, so they give off gravity as they move through space, but the ZPF doesn’t seem to be able to couple to the Photon like it does when effecting matter. This is because the gravity a photon produces is not local, as matter produces gravity from within its innate structure…

The ZPF even at absolute zero temperatures still effect matter with inertia, for the vacuum would still contain ½h. This is where the Dirac Sea comes into valuable play. It has been known for a while now that the Dirac Sea, which is a negative sea of energy is also a zero-point source. Because of the equations that describe this, we now link the Dirac Sea as being the same thing as the Zero-Point Field.

The Dirac Equation was formulated by linking together quantum mechanics and relativity together in hope of some unification. At the time, Dirac only had three particles to work with, as the proton, neutron and the electron was the only particles on the quantum standard model. He found that when a certain amount of energy was added in spacetime would force one of these negatively charged virtual particles to spontaneously bubble from what can only be described as a quantum aether.

The Dirac Equation is given as:
……………… .3
(Mc^2 +  p_c ) (x,t) = ih t (x, t)
…………k=1

Whilst the Dirac Equation has many implications and relations in physics, such as being a wave equation itself, therefore it is linked to the Schrodinger Equation, it also predicted that spin was in fact the product of relating quantum theory with relativity using wonderful mathematics and matrices.

But more importantly, it showed and confirmed the existence of antimatter, giving a negative solution to E=Mc^2. By coupling the electromagnetic field with the Dirac Equation, positive and negative properties are mixed, and the solution became antimatter-matter annihilation. This alone is a massive set of proofs that photons where the primal existing particle of energy, creating everything in the universe… and that an inverse property could reduce that matter back to its photon energetic form.

3.
A Vacuum, a Photon and no Time at All

1.

As I mentioned throughout my essays, the vacuum itself is physical. Even if you removed all the visible matter and energy, there is still an infinite amount of energy. But I made it even clearer that this wasn’t just ‘’any’’ energy. I wanted to show empirical proof that the photon (electromagnetic radiation) was in fact primal – that the vacuum of space and time, was just electromagnetism itself (1). I’ve never heard a physicist call the photon as a primal particle, but it certainly gives it an edge.

(1)* I won’t highlight the gravitational, weak or strong forces as of yet. Electromagnetism has been successfully unified with the weak force and the strong, and at high enough energies, the strong and gravitational forces are theoretically able to be unified as well, as a one-single force, named Quantum Gravity.

But if you ask a physicist, is time primal (as in the imaginary dimension of space), they will almost definitely say ‘’yes’’. We extrapolate back to find the most primal and fundamental occurrences so that we can initiate a picture of our universe today – the foundation upon which God created everything.

It turns out that the equations describing a single photon evolving into other particles can be relatively easy. During the process of this work, I was asked to integrate Quantum Electrodynamics into the frame-work, and quite rightly so.

Scattering light with light is In fact contributes to the magnetic anomaly of the leptons ~ Especially the ones with higher mass. For instance that of the muon. I suggest that before such scattering occurred a few moments after energy appeared in the universe, the photons first had to decay into like particles – Leptons… and this contributed to the first light-light scatterings, and could have created some of the most exotic particles known on the standard model.

A photon with a high energy E has quite a short wave length, whilst photon energy which is low exhibit long frquencies which are of course proportional to their wave lengths. If a photons scatters of another photon, the result would be that it would endure a decrease in energy, and shorten its wave length. There is an inverse law which states that a photon can scatter off matter, and inversely gain energy – more than what the photon contained originally. This can inevitably lead to the photon (if my theory on photon frequency trapping is correct, instead of the energy knot theory), create new particles; which would be finite – since there is only a limited amount of particles that can be created in this universe due to statistical laws.

Compton Scattering, as it has come to be known in physics history, find that such processes are due to the conditions I raised above. The Compton Scattering is given through a string of math, as derived from (λs = c/) giving the formula:

’ - h/M_ec (1- cos)

The result of scattering photon energy will collide with a system at rest, and this will produce a new photon (out of the Aether of virtual electromagnetic radiation), and the angle of the release of this new energy is given by the variable . This can only be done however if there is a conservation in energy and momenta.

E(gamma)+P(gamma) = E(gamma)’+P(gamma)’

Where E(gamma) and P(gamma) is the energy and momentum of the photon. The creation of matter very early on will have also happened through pair production. However, quite a few photons would have had to have decayed into protons, decaying into electrons and neutrons before hand, because pair-production is when a photon moves into an atomic nucleus in high energy collisions. The result is that the photon creates two electrons; one being a negative electron and the other a positive electron (its antiparticle), without violating any necessary laws of conservation:

y → Positron + electron

- Both at periodic angles again given as . Because the produced particles have opposite forces, they tend to rush away from each other. It’s almost analogous to an anti-gravitational effect. When two electrons are produced in the atom, the positron will rush out of the atom, whilst the electron remains in orbit around the nucleons in a cloud of probability.

Pair production can only happen however, if the photon has an energy that exceeds the rest mass (me) of an electron (1.022 MeV) – twice the relativistic energy E/c^2; the same applies for the generation of other higher energy leptons such as the muon.

Such processes still happen today – especially round black holes where their boundaries give off radiation in pair production. One antiparticle will fall into the black hole, whilst the other particle will accelerate off into spacetime. There aren’t that many antiparticles though. There is something like 1 antiparticle to every 10^7 photons in our universe, but because of recent developments showing that nothing can disappear from our universe through black holes, the antiparticles that do fall into them will return, possibly in the future state of our universe. This is only speculation on my behalf though.

2.

So far, there can be no reason why we should not suspect the primal photon to have provided everything with substance through processes like inflation, natural decay and even pair-production, a little later on after the photons had flooded spacetime. Somehow acceleration of energy creates the matter within a particle, and the inertial effects are an indication of the mechanism that seems to be the suspect cause.

So for this section, what evidence mathematically-wise do we have to attach these hypotheses together>? Well, it seems best to start with Newton’s relationship between matter and acceleration – his second law of motion. His three laws are:
1. A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity unless an unbalanced net force acts upon it.
2. The net force on a body is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration.
3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
As you will most probably know, these laws don’t necessarily apply to the subatomic world. It is the second law that is of interest here, for it is found that force is directly proportional to the mass multiplied by the acceleration of a system.
Newton’s second law is derived mathematically as:

F = d(mv)/dt
The equation is seen in reference of an inertial frame, which is basically a mass moving through spacetime experiencing a resistance. The first law however is more of a special case of the second law, which is really a law of acceleration. In relativity, we find that acceleration is the same as mass, and this is the same as gravity.
Inertia can be felt. It seems to be directly a consequence of acceleration itself. If we imagine a stationary ball inside a moving train, the ball will according to the observers inside the train see it move back, whilst paradoxically the train is moving forward. This is called the inertial frame of reference. This resistance hasn’t been answered by Newton or by Einstein’s relativity theories.
Inertia is intrinsic to gravity and matter, so massless bodies do not have any inertial effects effected upon them.

(Apologies up-front for the variables used. They don't seem to be showing up properly.)

More of the essay to come>